Skip to main content

Curated research library of TV news clips regarding the NSA, its oversight and privacy issues, 2009-2014

Click "More / Share / Borrow" for each clip's source context and citation link. HTML5 compatible browser required

Primary curation & research: Robin Chin, Internet Archive TV News Researcher; using TV News Archive service.

Speakers

Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
FOXNEWSW 06/06/2013
The business records sections of the Patriot Act were designed for specific investigations against specific individuals. I would see nothing wrong with targeting the phone records of somebody who is suspected of terrorism, but everybody who either sent or received a call from a Verizon phone, and maybe the other phone, cell phone providers, that was never the intent of the business records section.
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
FOXNEWSW 06/06/2013
The business records section is set to expire in 2015. I want to find out why they decided to have such a broad brush to bring in everybody. If we have to amend the Patriot Act before 2015 to stop this from happening I'm all for doing that. I'm the author of the Act.
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
KPIX 06/07/2013
Voiceover: “The legal basis grew out of the Patriot Act passed after 9/11. Only a handful of lawmakers knew of Prism and all were sworn to secrecy. But revelations of the program this week raised alarms from both parties on Capitol Hill. Republican Jim Sensenbrenner he helped craft the Patriot Act.” “I'm angry and I was the one who wrote the law. I think both the Justice Department and NSA have abused this going too far.”
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
FOXNEWSW 06/18/2013
Part 1:" The problem you got with the FISA court is that if they go too far there, is no way that somebody who is hurt by their orders can go to a public court to be able to challenge it. if you or Ii were to receive a subpoena or a search warrant for whatever reason, we can go to court and try to get that quashed, because we know what they are asking for and we can make a determination of whether they have gone too far"
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
FOXNEWSW 06/18/2013
Part 2: "or whether it's not relevant. But nobody knows what the FISA court has ordered, and my concern is is that it's kind of like saying that the police have to stop everybody to try to find the one drunken driver on the road. People should only be accused when there is probable cause, and I thought the Patriot Act had been drafted in a narrow way so we would go after foreigners who were targets, but evidently the justice department and FISA( court decided to go beyond it.)"
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Sensenbrenner: I've been the author of the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act reauthorization of 2006. Mr. Conyers, sir was correct in saying why the relevance standard was put in and that was an attempt to limit what the intelligence community could be able to get pursuant to section 215.
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Sensenbrenner Part 1: It appears to me that according to this letter and according to the testimony of the Feb.. Director Mueller that relevant was an expansion of what could happen rather than a limitation when the law was amended when relevant was not included in that statute. And doesn't that make a mockery of the legal standard because you're trying to have it both ways? Cole: I don't think we're trying have it both ways. Sensenbrenner: well, you sure are because you're saying
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Sensenbrenner Part 2: authorize, have the court authorize to get us the records of all the phone calls that are made to and from phones in the united states including people who have nothing to do with any type of a terrorist investigation. And then what you're saying is that we'll decide what to pick out of that mass of maybe a billion phone calls a day on what we're looking at rather than saying this person is a target, why don't you get an authorization only for that person's (telephone records?)
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Sensenbrenner: (Let me tell you one who has fought Patriot Act fights usually against the) people over on the other side of the aisle, section 215 expires at the end of 2015 and unless you realize you got a problem, that is not going to be renewed. There are not the votes in the house of representatives to renew section 215 and then you're going to lose the business record access provision of the Patriot Act entirely. It has to be changed and you have to change how you operate section 215 otherwise in a year and a half or two years you're not going to have it anymore
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
CSPAN 07/24/2013
Sensenbrenner: I rise in strong support of the Amash amendment. I do so as the person who is the principal author of the Patriot Act in 2001 who got that (law through quickly after) 9/11 and who supported and managed the 2006 re-authorization. Let me make this perfectly clear that unlike what we've heard
Showing 1 through 10 of 17
Page 1 2